4.2 Article

Performance of automated slidemakers and stainers in a working laboratory environment - routine operation and quality control

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-553X.2009.01141.x

关键词

Peripheral blood films; quality control; automated slidemaker; stainers; leukocyte differential counts; blood cell morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The automated slidemaker/stainers of the four Beckman Coulter LH755 hematology systems in our laboratory are operated as analyzers, with similar requirements for setup, maintenance and quality control. A study was performed to confirm that these slide maker/stainers in routine use produce peripheral blood films that are completely satisfactory for microscopy and without cells, particularly abnormal cells, being pulled to the edges or sides of the film outside the usual working area. One hundred and thirty-nine automated blood films that had been produced during routine operation were compared with well-prepared manual films from the same patients. None of the films was unacceptable for microscopy. The distributions of normal white cell types within the counting areas of automated films compared with manual films, for all 139 samples for WBC from 1.0 to 352.8 x 109/l; for blasts and promyelocytes in the 65 samples in which they occurred and for nucleated red blood cells in the 58 samples in which they occurred all fell within the expected limits of 200 cell differential counts of CLSI H20-A. Red cell morphology and the occurrence of WBC clumps, platelet clumps and smudge cells were comparable between the automated and manual films of all samples. We conclude that automated slidemaker/stainers, as typified by those of the Beckman Coulter LH755 system, are capable of producing blood films comparable with well-prepared manual films in routine laboratory use; and that the maintenance and quality control procedures used in our laboratory ensure consistent high quality performance from these systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据